Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL WAR EFFORT.

PRODUCTION INQUIRY COMMITTEES.

Mr. Lipson: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will obtain reports from time to time on the success of production inquiry committees in bringing about an increase in production?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): I am sure my hon. Friend will appreciate that the subject matter of his Question is not one on which formal reports can be of substantial value. The essence of the success of joint consultative bodies lies in the spirit which animates them, and the result, as measured in terms of increased co-operation, cannot be detailed in a report.

WORKERS FROM IRELAND (MEDICAL EXAMINATION).

Sir Percy Hurd: asked the Minister of Labour, to what extent the Irish workers brought to this country to work on aerodromes, and for other employment, come from Northern Ireland and Eire, respectively; and what efforts have been made to ensure their medical inspection before departure from Belfast, Dublin and other ports?

Mr. Bevin: I regret that I cannot give the information asked for in the first part of the Question. With regard to the second part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 4th December by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health to the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Wakefield).

Sir P. Hurd: Does my right hon. Friend realise what a serious position is created when we in Wiltshire have to put up with these diseased labourers and have no means of redress?

Mr. Bevin: What kind of labourers?

Sir P. Hurd: Irish labourers, coming for aerodrome and other work. We find they are filling up our hospitals.

VOCATIONAL AND TEMPERAMENTAL TESTS.

Mr. Marcus Samuel: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has considered the successful results of the Humm-Wadsworth tests, as practised at the Lockheed and other plants in the United States of America, with a view to examining the workers for their particular vocational and temperamental aptitudes, particulars of which have been sent to him; and whether he will take steps to build up a similar system here?

Mr. Bevin: In the particulars which my hon. Friend was good enough to send me this system is described as a test of temperament, and I gather that the first of the questions which it puts to candidates for employment is, "Do you prefer bright or conservative colours?" I am advised that the development of temperamental tests in this country is still at an experimental stage and that I should not be justified in urging the adoption of such tests at the present time.

Mr. George Griffiths: Is it the case that the hon. Member who has put the Question prefers blue to any other colour?

Mr. Samuel: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for making a joke of my Question, might I ask whether he is aware that the Lockheed works have found these tests most successful and that the United States Government is not a particularly conservative Government?

FACTORY CANTEENS.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that a number of small firms do not provide canteen arrangements for their employees; and will he have inquiry made to see if this could be remedied as it would lead to greater satisfaction among the workers?

Mr. Bevin: The Government policy in this matter is indicated on page 20 of the Twenty-fifth Report of the Select Committee on National Expenditure, to which I would refer my hon. Friend. Canteens might well be provided, and, if necessary, required at some small factories in exceptional circumstances, but to do this on a widespread scale would


involve far more labour, materials and equipment than is available for the purpose, and would be less favourable to other workers in the vicinity than the policy of developing feeding facilities on a locality rather than on a factory basis.

Mr. Tinker: The trouble is that in these small places the employees are not getting the same amount of food as in the bigger places. Cannot something be done to bring about an equalisation of rations?

Mr. Bevin: I would prefer that my hon. Friend should give me particulars of any case and I would take it up with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Food in order to see whether a British Restaurant in the vicinity could do the catering better.

Mr. Tinker: I will do that.

TRAINEES.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will state the methods taken to place trainess in suitable positions after they have completed a full course at a training centre and been passed out as satisfactory?

Mr. Bevin: To the greatest extent possible, arrangements are made beforehand with the prospective employer, and the training is adjusted to the particular operations which the trainees will have to perform. Where this cannot be arranged the placing machinery of the employment exchanges is used.

Mr. Tinker: Is there any redress for a person who has been trained and who is not satisfied with the duties to which he is allotted? Can he have a change?

Mr. Bevin: I would like notice of that Question.

Mr. M. Samuel: Is that a conservative operation?

LATENESS AND ABSENTEEISM.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Minister of Labour whether it is permissible for National Service officers to classify late ness and absenteeism as serious misconduct under the Essential Work Order without having first spoken to the men in question?

Mr. Bevin: No, Sir. The Essential Work Orders do not take away the employers' right to discharge a worker

for serious misconduct, and the National Service officer has no jurisdiction in such a case unless the worker has successfully appealed to an appeal board. If alleged lateness or absenteeism is reported to the National Service officer, he is required to supply the worker with a copy of the particulars given by the employer.

WOMEN WORKERS (CARE OF CHILDREN).

Mrs. Adamson: asked the Minister of Health why, in view of the Government's policy of properly caring for young children whose mothers volunteered for war work, it is stated in Circular 2535, dated 5th December, that it is hoped that most of the women concerned will be able to make private arrangements with friends and relatives for the care of their children; and why it is suggested that the local authorities should make arrangements for the care of children only in cases where private unsupervised arrangements can not be made?

The Minister of Health (Mr. Ernest Brown): The policy of the Government is to make use of all methods which are suit able to the needs of the children. The provision of war-time nurseries is an important method. They are being set up as quickly as labour and materials permit, and we shall provide as many as are needed, in the light of the estimates for each area made by the Department of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service, and taking account not only of present but of future requirements. A number of mothers prefer to make their own arrangements with relatives and friends, and the local authorities are therefore providing first for children for whom no other adequate provision exists.

Mrs. Adamson: Is the Minister aware that the private unsupervised arrangements are unsatisfactory, that they break down on the slightest pretext, and are responsible for a great amount of absenteeism among women engaged in war work?

Mr. Brown: If the hon. Lady has details of a particular case I shall be glad to have them. The fact is that we may pro vide the nurseries, but it is the mothers who decide whether they shall use them or not.

Miss Cazalet: Is the policy of the Government in favour of war nurseries rather than minders?

Mr. Brown: It is clear that the policy of the Government is in favour of war nurseries, but the Government also recognise that, as the demand for the labour of married women develops, we shall want all methods to be used.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: In view of the doubts and criticisms in all parts of the country regarding the circular referred to in the Question, will the Minister arrange for a Debate at an early date so that we may re-examine the whole problem and reassure the nation that we will not do anything damaging, if we can help it?

Mr. Brown: That is not a matter for me.

Mrs. Adamson: asked the Minister of Health (1) what is the number of wartime nurseries in existence and the number of children accommodated in those already in operation, and the number of wartime nurseries and the number of children to be accommodated in them, which have been sanctioned but are not yet in operation, in the following places: municipal and county boroughs in the county of Middlesex, municipal and county boroughs in the county of Kent, Reading, Oxford, Gloucester, Cheltenham, Stroud, Bridgwater, Bedford, Birmingham, Coventry, Stoke-on-Trent, Northants County Council, Grantham, Doncaster, Leeds, York, Liverpool, Wigan, Crewe and Newcastle-upon-Tyne;
(2) whether he will give the list of places to which the Ministry of Health Circular No. 2535 has been sent for action?

Mr. Brown: It would not be in the public interest to publish these figures, in view of their connection with the location of war industry. I am having a map prepared in the Ministry which I shall be glad to give hon. Members who are interested an opportunity of seeing.

Mr. Lindsay: asked the Minister of Health how many regional nursery advisers have been appointed; what are their functions; and what are their relations to local education authorities?

Mr. Brown: I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of the regional advisers on child care whom I have appointed in consultation with the President of the Board of Education. They will be concerned with the development of measures to be taken by Maternity and

Child Welfare Authorities and local education authorities for the care of the children of women in employment and will work in collaboration with my regional staffs and His Majesty's inspectors of schools.

Mr. Lindsay: If this is done in collaboration with the President of the Board of Education, will my right hon. Friend see that directors of education are notified of this?

Mr. Brown: That will be arranged.

Sir Percy Harris: Can my right hon. Friend give some indication of the qualifications of these advisers?

Mr. Brown: I will consider making a public statement about that.

Following is the list:

Midland Region: The Marchioness of Reading.

North Western Region: Lady Openshaw.

Southern Region: Mrs. Eva M. Hubback, M.A., J.P.

Northern Region: Mrs. F. Todd.

In the London Region Mr. H. U. Willink, K.C., M.C., M.P., Regional Commissioner for the Care of the Home less, has, at the request of the Minister of Health, undertaken general super vision of this work.

COAL PRODUCTION.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Prime Minister whether consideration has been given to the position of the mining industry in the light of the new situation; have all the Government Departments concerned been consulted; and will he issue instructions for a number of miners, where convenient, to be temporarily released from service in the Armed Forces?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Attlee): The whole coal situation, both as regards consumption and production, is being regularly reviewed by the appropriate authorities and in that connection consideration is of course given to the question of man-power, including that of a temporary release of ex-miners from the Armed Forces. Hitherto it has not been considered necessary to take this rather serious step in order to maintain essential coal production, but the man power situation generally is now being examined afresh.

Mr. E. Smith: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that all those engaged in the mining industry have made a great effort to bring about the maximum production, and that now they are of the opinion that they have reached the peak of production with the number of men in the industry?

Mr. Attlee: All those considerations will be borne in mind. We are keeping in very close touch with all those engaged in the industry.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the right hon. Gentle man aware that we shall never get the maximum production of coal while the mine-owners keep the industry on a county basis, and will not the Government take steps to set up a national board and treat the industry nationally?

Oral Answers to Questions — MILITARY SERVICE.

MEDICAL BOARDS.

Mr. Touche: asked the Minister of Labour in how many cases has any action been taken in regard to members of medical boards who have made serious mistakes in passing unfit men as Grade I for the Services?

Mr. Bevin: The decision as to grading is taken by the medical board and not by an individual doctor. There have, how ever, been eight cases in which the appointments of chairman and members of medical boards were terminated on account of unsuitability or inefficiency: in some other cases, in which appointments were not continued, relative in efficiency or unsuitability was one of the reasons, but I could not give any precise figures under this head. I should add that the Medical Advisory Committee, under the chairmanship of Lord Horder, which assists the Department in making the arrangements for medical examination, have given it as their opinion that the proportion of men who are passed by the boards as fit for service, and found later to be unfit, is small.

CLASSIFICATION (40 TO 50 AGE GROUP).

Mr. James Griffiths: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is issuing any special instructions to the medical boards to guide them in the classification of men in the 40 to 50 age group for military service; and the nature of the instructions?

Mr. Bevin: Such men are not at present being called up, and when they are, they will be posted only to static and sedentary duties. The existing classification is made on medical grounds, and, while I think it unlikely that any modification need be made in the present medical code in order to enable men over 40 to be properly posted, I am in touch with my Medical Advisory Committee on the whole subject.

Sir Francis Fremantle: Does not X-ray examination of recruits eliminate people who are unfit for service but are not ordinarily discovered, as such, by the recruiting boards?

Mr. Bevin: I have been pursuing that subject, but, as I have explained before, it is really a question of equipment.

Sir F. Fremantle: Is it not the case that that equipment is now coming forward in considerable quantity and can be supplied?

Mr. J. Griffiths: Will my right hon. Friend, in consulting with his medical officers, bear in mind that a fairly large percentage of recruits are unfit because of industrial diseases or industrial accidents?

Mr. Bevin: Yes, Sir; it will be borne in mind. The medical examination that is being carried out at present reveals a lot of what might be called preventable ill ness, that is, illness which might be pre vented by slight changes in the designing of machinery and the form of occupations.

UNIVERSITY STUDENTS.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the anxiety aroused in connection with the future work of the universities, in view of the latest changes in the regulations as to the calling-up of students; and whether he has been able to make provision for the continuance of at least a short course of university study, under appropriate conditions, for honours students in the faculty of arts?

Mr. Bevin: I understand that the anxiety to which my hon. Friend refers relates to the position of young men who wish to enter a University as students in the faculty of arts next October. I recognise the importance of announcing a decision at an early date, and I am in consultation with my colleagues in the Service Departments and others concerned with regard to the matter.

Mr. Harvey: Will my right hon. Friend consult with the university Members on this matter, which affects the whole future of the universities?

Professor Savory: Including the university Member from Northern Ireland?

Mr. Bevin: I am in constant touch with the universities on this matter, but, on the question of training men for special privileged positions as officers, I have also to bear in mind the position of many men in the Army who are studying to become officers from the rank and file.

TEACHERS.

Mr. Hannah: asked the President of the Board of Education whether he will make clear the exact position as to the calling-up of teachers and the return to the schools of those already in the Services?

The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Butler): The policy decided upon in present circumstances is that teachers over 35 in recognised schools are not to be called up, and those under 35 whose calling-up has been deferred will have their deferments continued. It is another matter, however, where teachers are already in the Services. The criterion for deciding whether the Board can support any application for such teachers to return to the schools is that their services are essential for work in the schools and directly related to the national war effort.

Mr. Lipson: Can the Minister say whether public schools are recognised schools for these purposes?

Mr. Butler: The position of schools not recognised by the Board is set out in Paragraph 5 of Circular 1574.

CANDIDATES FOR COMMISSIONS.

Miss Eleanor Rathbone: asked the Prime Minister what steps he is taking to counteract the widespread impression among those in or about to join the Forces that their chances of obtaining commissions will be impaired if they do not possess private means, and that with out private means they may be unable to meet their liabilities as commissioned officers; whether commanding officers or boards concerned with recommending men or women in the Services for commissions are permitted to make inquiries

as to their financial position, or to discourage them from seeking commissions if they lack means of supplementing their Service pay; and whether my instructions on the subject have been issued to those concerned with recommendations for commissions?

Mr. Attlee: The sole test in selecting men for commissions is their suitability from the military aspect and no regard whatever is paid to candidates' financial standing. Selection Boards have therefore no occasion to inquire into the private means of candidates, and I have no reason to believe that the impression referred to by my hon. Friend is prevalent in the Forces. The large number of candidates coming forward for temporary commissions supports this view.

Miss Rathbone: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable evidence to the contrary? Will he give an assurance that commanding officers will be made to understand that it is not the policy of His Majesty's Government that anybody should be deterred from seeking, or impeded in receiving, a commission by their poverty?

Mr. Attlee: I think the answer I have given sufficiently meets the point, but if the hon. Lady has any specific instances, perhaps she will bring them to the notice of the Ministers in charge of the respective Departments.

Captain C. S. Taylor: Does not the question turn upon the completely in adequate pay of the subaltern officer; and is it not a fact that many warrant officers and senior N.C.O.s refuse to take com missions because the subaltern's pay is so inadequate?

Sir P. Harris: Is the right hon. Gentle man not aware that in certain of the Guards' regiments subalterns have to show that they have at least £100 a year, independent of their pay, in order to be admitted?

Mr. Bellenger: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Selection Boards are asking candidates for commissions what is the position of their fathers? Does he not think that that is a wholly irrelevant question, and will he put a stop to it?

Mr. Attlee: I am not aware of that.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES AND CIVILIANS (PENSIONS AND GRANTS).

Mr. Lipson: asked the Minister of Pensions why, in view of the Government's admitted liability for a disablement pension to men admitted into the Forces A1, and later discharged on medical grounds, he has refused one to Mr. John Lewis Castle, of Cheltenham, who served in the Army for 27 years, from 1914 to April, 1941, when he was discharged on account of deafness, due to his having been blown up in the last war; and will he arrange for Mr. Castle to be given a disability pension?

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): The interpretation to be placed on the words "materially aggravated" which I announced on 3rd July last applied to men passed fit on recruitment or mobilisation for service in the present war. Mr. Castle claims that he was fit on enlistment in 1914 and that his disability, deafness, is due to an incident in 1916. In the case of a claim made so long after the expiry of the statutory time limit for the submission of claims relating to great war service there must, before I can exceptionally deal with the case, be evidence to justify a certificate from my medical advisers that the disability is due to service. There is at present no such evidence, but if Mr. Castle can produce it I shall he happy to look at his case again.

Mr. Lipson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the medical board which recommended his discharge from the Forces said that his disability was 30 per cent. on medical grounds, and that, apparently, has been turned down by his own medical officers, and cannot he re consider that point further?

Sir W. Womersley: I must have evidence of the incident which caused his deafness. Mr. Castle remained in the Army until recently, having done 27 years' service, and he made no complaint whatever during the time he was serving in the Army. The incident took place in 1916. He retired as a quarter-master, which is a very high rank for a warrant officer, on a pension of 36s. 2d. a week.

Mr. Lipson: Is not the Minister aware that this man was discharged on medical grounds and that, therefore, as he had been for 27 years in the Army, there is a

very strong presumption that his medical grounds of discharge were caused by his military service; and will he not be a little more generous in his interpretation of this matter?

Sir W. Womersley: I am always generous in my interpretation in any particular case, but I can deal only with what hap pens during the present war. If this happened during peace-time service, it is a matter for the War Office and not for me.

Mr. Rhys Davies: In determining a case of this kind, why does the right hon. Gentleman rely exclusively on medical opinion? Is he not aware that in cases of workmen's compensation medical opinion is only part of the evidence to be determined by a body of laymen?

Sir W. Womersley: I have already announced that I want the applicant him self to furnish me with particulars of the incident that caused his deafness, and it has not been furnished. I am not depending solely upon medical opinion, but I want evidence from the roan himself. Surely, it is reasonable to ask for that, and I have informed the hon. Member that if evidence is furnished I will go into the case again.

Mr. Stephen: Can the Minister say whether, if there is some conflicting evidence, it is the practice of the Ministry always to give the benefit of the doubt to the applicant?

Sir W. Womersley: There is no evidence on which to decide whether there is disablement or not. I have not had the evidence. The case has merely been brought to my notice by the hon. Member.

Mr. Stephen: May I ask—

Mr. Speaker: rose—

Mr. Stephen: Mr. Speaker, this is very important—

Mr. Speaker: We really must get on with the Questions.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will give further consideration to the cases of widows who have each received the maximum compensation of £600 arising from the death of their husbands through explosion at a Government factory; whether he is aware


that the contrast of this, with much larger amounts, given in lump sum or in pension to widows whose husbands were employed by private employers, or were in National Health Insurance or were on active service with the Forces, creates a sense of grievance; and whether steps will be taken to remedy this unequal treatment?

Sir W. Womersley: The hon. Member presumably has in mind compensation payable under the Workmen's Compensation Acts or schemes made thereunder. Such payments are not within the provisions of the Service warrants or civilian schemes for which I am responsible but are matters for the employing Department concerned.

Mr. Sorensen: Can the right hon. Gentleman say to which Department I should address the Question?

Sir W. Womersley: If the hon. Member will have a word with me, I think I shall be able to put him on the right lines.

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Minister of Pensions what is the average rate of allowance granted under the War Service Grants Scheme; and in how many cases has the maximum grant of £3 been paid?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions (Mr. Paling): On completion of the recent review of existing cases it was found that the average grant in such cases was 15s. a week. As regards new applications since received, Command Paper 6318 has enabled an award to be made in a large number of cases which previously it would have been necessary to reject. One result of this, however, has been that the average amount of the award in new cases has declined and at the end of January last it was just over 12s. a week. The number of cases in which the maximum grant is in payment is about 400.

Mr. Bellenger: Does not that answer indicate that the benefits which we were told would flow from this new scheme have not come up to expectations?

Mr. Paling: It does not indicate any thing of the kind. As a matter of fact, benefits have flowed very generously.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISCHARGED EX-SERVICEMEN (BADGES).

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Minister of Pensions what are the conditions govern-

ing the issue of badges to discharged ex-Service men?

Sir W. Womersley: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal to the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) on 7th August last. To be entitled to a badge a person must be invalided from the Forces, the Merchant Navy or Fishing Fleet for a disability attributable to service in the present war. Issue of a badge accordingly follows the admission of entitlement to the benefits of the Royal Warrants or other instruments administered by my Department.

Mr. Bellenger: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that a considerable number of men have been discharged from the Services who are not able to establish a claim for a pension but who have, nevertheless, been discharged as medically unfit; and in these circum stances cannot he influence the Service Departments to provide these badges?

Sir W. Womersley: As the hon. Member knows, I act only as a distribution agent. I have to take my instructions from other quarters, and I will certainly put that point in the right quarter.

Flight-Lieutenant Ralph Etherton: asked the Minister of Pensions what period of time elapses between the discharge of men from the Services on wound or other health grounds and the issue of a badge indicative of their service; and whether he will expedite the issue of badges to men discharged over 18 months ago who have not yet received their badge?

Sir W. Womersley: Badges have been issued to just over two-thirds of the persons eligible to receive them. Further distribution is proceeding as supplies from the manufacturers become available.

Flight-Lieutenant Etherton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the delay in these cases places these men in a very unfair position and that I have in mind the case of a man who lost his leg nearly two years ago and is still without a badge?

Sir W. Womersley: It has been a source of annoyance to myself that I have not been able to get these badges from the manufacturers in sufficient numbers to issue to everyone, but I am glad to say that, after strenuous efforts, we have been


able to get badges now and I hope that everyone will receive a badge before many days are over.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

WAR CABINET AND PACIFIC WAR COUNCIL (REPRESENTATION).

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Secretary of State for India what representative from India it is proposed to appoint to the newly formed Empire War Directorate?

The Secretary of State for India (Mr. Amery): His Majesty's Government are anxious that India should be afforded the same opportunity as the Dominions of being represented at the War Cabinet and on the Pacific War Council for the purposes of formulation and direction of policy for the prosecution of the war. They have accordingly invited the Government of India to arrange for such representation if they so desire.

DEFENCE COMMITTEE AND GENERAL STAFF (REPRESENTATION).

Sir T. Moore: asked the Secretary of State for India what are the names, ranks and qualifications of the Indian representatives on the Defence Committee and General Staff?

Mr. Amery: The organisation of the Defence Committee is flexible, Ministers and their advisers being invited to attend as necessary. Accordingly, the Secretary of State for India, accompanied by the Military Secretary of the India Office (who is a Major-General in the Indian Army), attends the Committee whenever matters affecting Indian interests are under discussion. The Indian Army is represented both in the General Staff of the War Office and in the military side of the War Cabinet Secretariat.

Sir Percy Harris: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that the Indian representative will have equal status with the Dominion representative?

Mr. Amery: Yes, Sir.

WAR-TIME INDUSTRY (TRADE UNIONS).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for India whether, with the expansion of Indian war-time industry, Indian trade unions have been consulted with a view both to securing proper wage

standards and conditions and also to promoting effective trade union organisation?

Mr. Amery: I will convey the hon. Member's inquiry to the Government of India.

Mr. Sorensen: Can the right: hon. Gentleman say whether any action along these lines has already been taken? Is it necessary to convey this inquiry? Surely, the right hon. Gentleman has some information regarding present and past action?

Mr. Amery: The hon. Member will appreciate that the trades union organisation is not nearly so powerfully developed in India as it is here, and, therefore, negotiations in these matters mostly assume a local aspect and would not necessarily come to my notice.

Mr. Sorensen: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is most desirable that trade union activity should be developed by every means in our power?

Mr. Amery: I have never discouraged it; on the contrary I have encouraged it.

Oral Answers to Questions — BURMA (DETAINEES).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for Burma why Dr. Ba Maw was imprisoned by the Government of U Saw, now detained by His Majesty's Government, and what charges are outstanding against him, U Ba Pe and the ex-Lord Mayor of Rangoon, U Ba Win; and whether the allegation of contact with Japan applies also to these detainees?

The Secretary of State for Burma (Mr. Amery): Dr. Ba Maw was prosecuted during the ministry of U Pu for a subversive speech and sentenced to one year's imprisonment in August, 1940. On the termination of his sentence he was detained under the Defence of Burma Rules. U Ba Pe and U Ba Win were also detained under the Defence of Burma Rules in October, 1941, but the latter has recently been released.

Mr. Sorensen: Can the right hon. Gentleman reply to the last sentence of my Question; and cannot these other Gentle men whose names he has mentioned at least be tentatively released, if they have not engaged in any subversive activity against the British Government?

Mr. Amery: I can only say that these persons were interned in the interests of public order and safety.

Captain McEwen: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that nobody should ever be detained in any circumstances whatever?

Mr. Sorensen: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman make a precedent in this case, in view of the circumstances?

Oral Answers to Questions — APPROVED SCHOOLS AND REMAND HOMES.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can give the latest figures of the numbers of children awaiting accommodation in approved schools; whether numbers of boys are still detained in prison owing to the shortage of remand homes; and what progress has been made in the provision of additional remand homes and additional approved schools?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): At the end of last year about 1,300 boys and girls under 17 were awaiting vacancies in approved schools, but it must be remembered that it usually takes time to find for each case the appropriate school and there must, therefore, always be a substantial number waiting while arrangements are made for their reception into schools. The number waiting in prison was less than 20. As my hon. Friend is aware, no child under 14 can be detained in prison, and young persons between 14 and 17 cannot be so detained unless the court gives a certificate of unruliness or depravity. During the year nearly 600 additional places were provided in approved schools and about 450 in remand homes. Further plans are on foot and, although in war conditions the difficulties of finding premises and getting necessary work done are very great, it is hoped that a number of additional approved schools and remand homes may be opened during the next few months.

Mr. Harvey: Would it be possible to lease premises or urge authorities to do so instead of merely acquiring by purchase?

Mr. Morrison: I do not think that would be excluded from consideration.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: Have they power to requisition?

Mr. Morrison: I am not sure.

Mr. Thorne: Can anything be done to help local authorities to obtain more premises?

Mr. Morrison: We give them all the help we can in that direction.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE.

RESCUE SERVICE (UNIFORM).

Mr. Jewson: asked the Home Secretary why the members of the rescue services at Great Yarmouth and Gorleston have had their overalls withdrawn; and will be have these restored to them as they are essential for work on damaged sites?

Mr. H. Morrison: Battledress has been authorised for the Civil Defence Rescue Service as being the most appropriate uniform for all that Service's active duty, and where it has been issued it must be worn for all work, and not reserved for parade purposes. Local authorities have been instructed that overalls must be withdrawn from personal issue when battledress is issued, though a small proportion may be retained at depots for duties in the depot. There are many urgent uses to which overalls so with drawn will be put, and for which the supply position does not warrant the provision of new overalls. New instructions on this subject are about to be issued to local authorities.

Mr. Jewson: Would the Minister consider what must be the condition of a navy blue serge battledress after the wearer has been working on a bomb-damaged site for some hours? Obviously overalls are very necessary.

Mr. Morrison: This point has been considered but the men have been provided with stout working dress and it would be a pity if the Rescue Services could not have the same smart uniform as other Services.

Commander Locker Lampson: Is it not more important to be warm?

Mr. Morrison: These clothes are warmer than the others.

METROPOLITAN SPECIAL CONSTABULARY.

Mr. Bower: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that full-time serving inspectors and sergeants of the


Metropolitan Special Constabulary are only receiving the same rate of pay as ordinary special constables; and whether, in the interests of efficiency and improved discipline; he will take steps to remedy this anomaly?

Mr. H. Morrison: While I appreciate fully the work of these officers, I think my hon. Friend's Question is based on some misapprehension of their position. Whole-time sergeants in the Metropolitan Special Constabulary are performing the duties of constables, and there would be no ground for granting them a higher rate of pay. As regards the inspectors, I would point out that when they under took to serve whole-time they were aware that there was a flat rate of pay for all whole-time special constables.

Mr. Bower: Is the Minister aware of the serious sense of grievance to which this position has given rise, and the detrimental effect it is having on the discipline of the Forces? Will he take some steps to bring the special constabulary into line with the regular officers in this matter?

Mr. Morrison: I admit that on the face of it it does look anomalous. These men were enrolled on that condition. More over, with the transfer from a peace time basis to a war-time basis the responsibility falls on the officers of the regular police.

Mr. Bower: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that full-time serving inspectors of the Metropolitan Special Constabulary are still classed as part-time officers for the purpose of the issue of uniforms, and still receive the same cheap quality cloth which was issued to them for their normal peace-time duties; and whether, in view of the unsuitability of these uniforms for full-time duties, he will take steps to remedy this at an early date?

Mr. Morrison: I am informed by the Commissioner that, while the uniforms issued to these full-time inspectors are of the same quality as those issued to part-time inspectors, the full-time inspectors are provided with two uniforms, while a part-time inspector has one only. I cannot on the information before me accept the suggestion that the uniforms are unsuitable for their purposes.

RELEASED DETAINEES.

Sir Irving Albery: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that per sons released from detention under Regulation 18B, with the endorsement on their identity cards, by order of the Secretary of State, the holder of this card must not be in an aliens protected area, are thereby hindered from obtaining employment; and whether he will take any necessary steps to facilitate the employment of released persons?

Mr. H. Morrison: I am fully in agreement with my hon. Friend's view that it is desirable that persons released from detention under Defence Regulation 18B should not be prevented from obtaining suitable employment, and, as I explained in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley) on the 4th December, I have arranged for such endorsements to be removed from the identity cards except in a few special cases where the endorsement is required to provide means of securing compliance with the restrictions imposed. It is obviously necessary that the police in an aliens protected area should be able to ascertain by inspection of the identity card whether a person has been prohibited from entering the area, and in the circumstances I regret that it is not possible to dispense with the endorsement of this restriction on the identity card.

Sir I. Albery: Are we to understand from the Minister that his Department, in their general method of dealing with these cases, will do what is possible to facilitate such persons obtaining employment?

Mr. Morrison: The Question on the Paper is about the endorsement of identity cards and I think the answer I have given does show that we are sympathetic about it. No doubt the hon. Gentleman is very keen about this matter. So am I, but I also must be keen about tilt security of the State and I hope he will keep that in mind.

Mr. Lathan: Upon whom rests responsibility for deciding whether an endorsement should be made?

Mr. Morrison: Guidance is issued on the matter by the Home Office. I rather think it would rest with the local police but I am not sure.

Captain W. T. Shaw: asked the Home Secretary whether any of the information upon which Mr. Ben Greene was arrested and detained was given on oath; whether at the inquiries before the Advisory Committee any information was given on oath and whether Mr. Greene was legally represented; and whether the information and witnesses were subjected to cross-examination?

Mr. Morrison: In matters affecting national security it is incumbent on the Secretary of State to take appropriate action on information which he believes to be reliable whether or not that information is given on oath. In the case of Mr. Greene the information was obtained from various sources but none of it was given on oath. Mr. Greene's solicitor appeared before the Advisory Committee to make certain representations and give certain information, but it is not the general practice of the Committee to allow persons appearing before them to be represented by counsel or solicitors. Advisory Committees are not courts of law and they are not empowered to administer oaths. The examinations of witnesses are not conducted by advocates for one side or another but by the Committee itself, which has the duty of eliciting all the relevant facts on whichever side they tell, and I am satisfied from reading the transcripts of their proceedings that the Committee spare no pains in subjecting to close and searching examination the in formation submitted to them and the wit nesses who appear before them.

Captain Shaw: Does the Minister in his quasi-judicial capacity consider it satisfactory that a British subject should be kept in prison for 19 to 20 months on information which has been proved to be false and which was unsworn? Can he say whether the informer will be prosecuted for perjury under the Regulations and whether the principal informer, who is an enemy alien, has received any payment from the security services?

Mr. Morrison: I am afraid the hon. and gallant Gentleman has been misled by inaccurate propaganda. I am sure that the premises upon which his Supplementary Question is based are not well founded.

Mr. Bellenger: Where is is established that perjury has been committed by a witness in these circumstances is there any remedy?

Mr. Morrison: I am not sure that that is an accurate description of what happened—

Mr. Bellenger: I am not suggesting it was. I merely asked a general question.

Mr. Morrison: I can assure the House that if, in the course of administration, any imperfections are brought to my notice they are promptly removed.

Captain Shaw: Would the Minister grant a public inquiry in this case?

CIVIL DEFENCE WORKERS AND HOME GUARD (CO-OPERATION).

Sir John Mellor: asked the Home Secretary whether, in collaboration with the Secretary of State for War, he will encourage members of the Civil Defence Services to receive weapon training and Home Guards to receive Civil Defence training in areas in which it is practicable and advisable?

Mr. H. Morrison: I am happy to announce that, following discussions between the various Departments interested and after consultation between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War and myself, an arrangement has recently been reached on the following lines. In districts where the Home Guard needs men, Civil Defence workers who can be spared will be permitted to enrol in the Home Guard under conditions enabling them to continue in the Civil Defence Services but to receive Home Guard training, on the understanding that when the Home Guard musters on a threat of invasion they will only be called upon for military duty if fighting is imminent in the neighbourhood, or if, in the opinion of the Civil Defence authority, they can be spared from their Civil Defence duties. The arrangement will apply to unpaid part-time members of all branches of the Civil Defence general services except the ambulance and first-aid post services, but the extent to which it will operate in any particular area will depend on local circumstances. It will not apply to whole-time members of the Services. The scheme will apply also to part-time members of the National Fire Service in certain areas, but it is unlikely that many men can be spared from this Service. The Civil Defence part-time establishments will also be examined to see whether any men can be released outright, and a similar scrutiny


is to be made in the Special Constabulary, to whom the general scheme does not apply. Men so released will retain no Civil Defence or police liabilities and so will become available for immediate recruitment to the Home Guard.
The War Office is arranging that the Home Guard, under their own officers, where, in the opinion of the military commander such a course is necessary and practicable without undue interference with Home Guard training and duties, shall assist in general Civil Defence and fire prevention duties. They will co-operate under the present quiet conditions as well as during and after heavy raids, subject to the requirements of their primary military role. I am glad to take this opportunity of acknowledging the great assistance which the Home Guard have already rendered to the civil authorities, and I am confident that the arrangements I have outlined above will be to the mutual benefit of both Services.

Sir J. Mellor: While thanking my right hon. Friend for the statement, which I can assure him will be appreciated, will he say whether this training will include training in "scorched earth" methods?

Mr. Morrison: I am afraid I cannot answer that question which, of course, affects the responsibility of the War Office.

Mr. Stephen: Will this training be at the option of the individual?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir.

ALLIED NATIONALS (EXEMPTION FROM RESTRICTIONS).

Mr. Lathan: asked the Home Secretary whether he will exempt from the special war-time restrictions imposed on all aliens since the outbreak of war the nationals of those states which are fighting with us in the present struggle?

Mr. H. Morrison: Yes, Sir, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I feel that it would be appropriate to grant a privileged position in the matter of these restrictions to the nationals in this country of the States which are fighting with us against the Axis for the freedom of the world. The present position is that members of the Allied Civil Administrations and their Armed Forces in this country have been exempted from the

restrictions in question. As regards the general body of civilians belonging to these nationalities, the policy hitherto has been to grant to them freely on application individual exemptions from the special war-time restrictions which impose limitations on their freedom of movement and on their possession of certain articles, such as bicycles and motor-cars. I have now decided to reverse this policy and to grant to nationals of the States at war with the Axis a wide measure of exemption from the war-time restrictions imposed on foreigners, while reserving my power to re-impose restrictions in exceptional cases where I am satisfied that it is necessary to do so in the interests of national security.
The necessary amending Orders are being drafted and will be published as soon as possible. The principal effect will be to exempt nationals of the States in question from the provisions of the curfew and from the restrictions on the possession of certain articles, and to give them the same freedom of movement as is enjoyed by persons of British nationality subject, in the case of the Aliens Protected Areas, to a requirement (which is necessary for purposes of administration) that they should notify to the appropriate police authorities any journeys which they may make into such areas. I am sure that the House will fully approve of these new arrangements as a fitting recognition of the special relationship in which we stand to those countries which are associated with us in the struggle against the common enemy.

Mr. Lathan: Will the decision my right hon. Friend has announced, which I am sure will give very widespread satisfaction, be made operative as quickly as possible, and will the Minister take steps to make it as widely known as possible?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir, as, I informed my hon. Friend, there are certain amending Orders to be made, and I will make them as rapidly as administrative arrangements permit. I can only rely on the Press and the B.B.C. to give the statement the fullest possible publicity, so that those concerned will be aware of the concessions granted.

Sir P. Harris: Can my right hon. Friend say whether these new provisions will apply to the Free French, and whether he has considered that matter?

Mr. Morrison: No, Sir, they, of course, come under the civil and military services of General de Gaulle. They have already had considerable privileges. I think it right to restrict these concessions to the nationals of states actually at war with the Axis.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINERS' LEADERS, IMPRISONMENT (RELEASE).

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the loss of coal production caused by the unlawful stop page of work at the Betteshanger Colliery, he will state his reasons for recommending the release of the three men, who had been sentenced to imprisonment by the magistrates?

Mr. H. Morrison: I have nothing to add to the statement which I made in answer to a Question by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sloan) on 3rd February, except to say that my decision to advise remission of the remainder of the sentences in these cases was taken after carefully weighing all the relevant considerations.

Sir J. Mellor: Having regard to the loss of 21,000 tons of coal, is my right hon. Friend aware that his release of these men has created a most unfortunate impression in the country?

Mr. Morrison: The House will realise that it is not customary for the Home Secretary to give reasons for recommending remission of sentences. I do not think that I can go beyond what I said in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire, when I stated:
While I do not in any way question the propriety of the action taken by the justices on the facts before them, I regard the amicable settlement of the dispute as an earnest of the determination of the workers at the Bettishanger Colliery to make the fullest contribution to the national effort and in these circum stances I felt justified in recommending the remission of the remainder of the sentences of imprisonment imposed on the miners' leaders."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd February, 1942; col. 1059, Vol. 377.]
I think that the action taken meets the requirements and the British desire for fair play.

Sir J. Mellor: As my right hon. Friend stated that he had consulted the magistrates, will he say whether the magistrates concurred in his decision?

Mr. Morrison: I do not think that it would be right for me to answer that question.

Mr. Kirkwood: It is a mischievous question.

Mr. James Griffiths: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the action taken in this matter has helped to ease the position?

Mr. Morrison: I hope that that will be the case.

Mr. Lawson: In view of the publicity which this matter has had is the country, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend is aware that this industry has been remark ably free from trouble during the war?

Oral Answers to Questions — DOUBLE SUMMER-TIME (PERIOD).

Mr. Lipson: asked the Home Secretary whether he can yet make any statement about the duration of double summer-time this year?

Mr. H. Morrison: After full consideration of the advantages and disadvantages of adding an extra hour of daylight in the evening to the summer months, and in view of the experience gained last year when this scheme was first put into operation, the Government has decided that on balance it is desirable to advance the clock again this year by another hour, and at an earlier date. The period of duration of double summer-time will begin this year on the night of Saturday 4th April, and end on the night of Saturday, 8th August.

Professor Savory: Has ray right hon. Friend consulted the Minister of Agriculture on this question?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir, very fully, and I have been in friendly consultation with other Ministers.

Sir P. Hurd: Will milk-producing counties have the same safeguards as last year, so as not to hamper milk production?

Mr. Morrison: The Minister of Agriculture proposes, as last year; to consider the special problems of agricuture—for example, the time of milk trains in consultation with the organisations of farmers and farm workers. He hopes to make an announcement at an early date.

Mr. Thorne: Is it not possible for farmers to make arrangements with the labourers?

Mr. Morrison: As I said, my right hon. Friend will consult farm workers, but, unfortunately, there is no organisation representing the cows.

Professor Savory: Do not forget the hens.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

TUBERCULOSIS.

Mr. J. Griffiths: asked the Minister of Health what steps he is taking to com bat the increased incidence of tuberculosis; and, in particular, what steps are being taken to prevent an increase of tuberculosis among women engaged in war production?

Mr. E. Brown: I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply to his Question on this subject on 20th November last. The most important factors in preventive action are the maintenance of as high a level of hygiene and nutrition as possible. The public health authorities and the Ministries concerned are taking all possible steps. The investigation which the Medical Re search Council is making as to the possible causes of increase in tuberculosis is a necessary preliminary to the adoption of any special measures for dealing with the problem. In the meantime facilities for early diagnosis and treatment are being maintained at as high a level of efficiency as war-time conditions permit.

Mr. Griffiths: Has there been any in crease in the accommodation in sanatoria?

Mr. Brown: That was done immediately we got the first signs, and we shall, as far as possible, meet the extra demands.

Sir F. Fremantle: Do the officials of my right hon. Friend's Department co-operate with the medical department of the Ministry of Supply for the purpose of seeing that emergency measures are taken in the factories themselves?

Mr. Brown: We are in constant touch.

Mr. Sorensen: Are efforts made to supply staff in those sanatoria where, at the present time, the staff is seriously depleted?

Mr. Brown: That is a different question.

HOSPITAL TREATMENT (PRIORITY CLASSES).

Mr. J. Griffiths: asked the Minister of Health what persons are covered by the term "priority classes for hospital treatment," under the Emergency Medical Service; and whether, having regard to the strain imposed upon men and women engaged in war production, he will extend the provisions now limited to the priority class to men and women so engaged?

Mr. E. Brown: There are various classes of patients included in the emergency hospital scheme, comprising members of His Majesty's Forces, air raid casualties, Civil Defence workers injured on duty and other classes, a list of which I will send my hon. Friend, But the arrangements are designed to avoid interference with the admission to hospital of other persons in need of in-patient treatment. There should be no priority for admission to hospital other than that indicated by the medical needs of the patient. As regards workers engaged on war production, my hon. Friend will see from the list that those who have been transferred from their home areas are already included in the scheme, as also are those sustaining fractures, whether they are in their home areas or not. Other war workers remaining at home should have access to their normal hospital facilities and, if these are subjected to undue pressure owing to war conditions, arrangements are made under the Emergency Scheme to transfer patients to other suitable hospitals, so that those requiring treatment may not be debarred from it.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

INCOME TAX (WEEKLY WAGE-EARNERS).

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, as the Income Tax procedure adopted for salaried individuals is unsuitable for the large number of wage earners now brought within the scope of the Income Tax laws, he will devise less cumbrous methods for collection of tax from weekly wage-earners?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): I cannot accept my hon. Friend's statement. The present method of collection is in the interest of the wage earners. I am, however, keeping the matter under careful review.

Mr. Bellenger: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that a system which in many cases calls for the assistance of trained accountants in preparing the returns is not a suitable scheme for weekly wages?

Sir K. Wood: I am glad to say that most of this work is being done by the employers, and I have not had criticisms or complaints in that connection.

WAR LOANS AND REQUISITIONED STOCKS (BANK COMMISSION).

Captain W. T. Shaw: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the amount of commission paid to banks on the issue of war bonds since the declaration of war; and the amount of commission paid to banks on dollar and sterling stocks requisitioned during the same period?

Sir K. Wood: Commission paid to banks since the outbreak of war on all forms of War Loan (including National Savings Certificates and 3 per cent. Defence Bonds) amounts to £1,358,000 of which commission on the three series of 2½ per cent. National War Bonds amounts to £740,000. These figures relate to subscriptions of £m.1,180 and £m.592 respectively. The total commission paid in respect of the requisitioning of dollar and sterling securities amounts to £405,000 but I am afraid that it is not possible without a disproportionate amount of labour to say how much of this was paid to banks and how much to stockbrokers.

Oral Answers to Questions — SERVICE ESTIMATES (DEBATE).

Sir Ralph Glyn: asked the Prime Minister whether it is intended to continue the practice, when Service Estimates come before the House, to enable a Debate on the three Services to take place, as well as the consideration of the Army, Navy and Air Force Estimates, separately?

Mr. Attlee: No, Sir. While these Debates were of great value in peace-time, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister considers that, in the altered circumstances caused by the war, the opportunities afforded to this House for discussion of general defence matters in the Debates on the war situation would render inappropriate the revival of this practice to-day.

Sir R. Glyn: Will my right hon. Friend give consideration to the importance of this House having an opportunity of debating the question of co-operation between the three Services on an appropriate occasion, and the means to be used to bring about that desired result?

Mr. Attlee: My hon. Friend will realise that it is always possible to put down the Vote for the Minister of Defence and raise a Debate on that particular matter. Otherwise, it can be raised in general debates on the war situation.

Wing-Commander James: Is it not unfortunate that, whereas before the war the House was able to have a Debate on defence as a whole when we had a Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence, we should not now have the same opportunity when the Prime Minister is Minister of Defence?

Mr. Attlee: As I have pointed out, there is an opportunity of having such a Debate on the appropriate Estimates, but in fact, the opportunity occurs very often in Debates on the general war situation.

Sir R. Glyn: Will my right hon. Friend tell me how such a Debate can take place on the Votes, as there is no Ministry of Defence and no salary for the Minister of Defence?

Mr. Attlee: I am informed that the Debate could take place on the appropriate Vote of the Treasury Estimates.

Mr. De Chair: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this matter is a very pressing one, and that hon. Members in all parties want the Government to give a lead on the subject? Would a Debate be possible at an early date?

Oral Answers to Questions — WOMEN'S SERVICES.

Miss Cazalet: asked the Prime Minister whether he has considered the representations recently made to the Lord Privy Seal by Members of the House of Commons on questions affecting the women's Services; and has he any statement to make?

Mr. Attlee: I should be glad if my hon. Friend would be good enough to repeat her Question on the third Sitting Day after 15th February.

Oral Answers to Questions — LIBYA (MILITARY OPERATIONS).

Mr. Riley: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the widespread anxiety concerning the course of events in Libya; whether he will cause an inquiry to be made into recent reverses, and a statement made to Parliament arising out of such an inquiry?

Mr. Attlee: I do not understand what sort of inquiry my hon. Friend desires. It would, of course, be impossible to make report to Parliament while operations in Libya are continuing.

Mr. Riley: Does the right hon. Gentle man appreciate that the public is very touch concerned and is anxiously await ing and expecting some adequate explanation?

Mr. Attlee: It is quite impossible to have a general investigation and a public statement on the course of a campaign when operations are still in progress.

Sir Herbert Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman refresh his memory by examining the circumstances in which a Royal Commission was appointed on the campaign in Mesopotamia before the campaign was concluded?

Mr. Attlee: The inquiry in the case of Mesopotamia was a matter concerned with the medical services. The inquiry into the Galipoli campaign took place after evacuation, when the campaign was ended.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

WAGES AND PRICES.

Captain Sir Ian Fraser: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is yet in a position to declare the new farm pro duce prices to compensate for the substantial rise in the cost of production owing to the recent wage increase and other causes?

Colonel Burton: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is now in a position to make a statement as to the measures of price regulation of agricultural products to meet the Odra farming costs which have ensued upon the fixation of agricultural workers' wages and other rises in expenditure on production?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. T. Williams): My right hon. Friend regrets

that he is not yet in a position to make an announcement.

Sir I. Fraser: Will the hon. Gentleman indicate to the War Cabinet that any hesitation on the part of the Government to implement promises to the farming community will cause very great apprehension not only this season but for the future?

Mr. Williams: The hon. and gallant Gentleman must not take a friendly examination of a highly complex problem as inevitably meaning that there is a conflict betwen the Minister and the Government.

Mr. De la Bère: Is it not a tact that the cause of the delay is the Treasury? Why do they not get on with the job?

Mr. MacLaren: Is there any truth in the report that there is a deadlock between the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Food over prices?

Mr. Williams: None whatever.

PIG-KEEPING.

Lieut.-Colonel Boles: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is encouraging the agricultural worker, as well as the town dweller, to use his kitchen waste and surplus garden or allotment produce for feeding to pigs so as to supplement food supplies?

Mr. T. Williams: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend is anxious that more agricultural workers should take advantage of the facilities available for keeping a pig in order to supplement their allowances of rationed foods. The Small Pig Keepers' Council are encouraging pig-keeping by agricultural workers, wherever possible, through the medium of pig clubs. Members of pig clubs are allowed under licence to kill two pigs a year for their domestic consumption. My right hon. Friend hopes that where practicable farmers will be ready to assist in providing housing and other facilities for their workers' pigs and will also give them every encouragement to start such activities.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME GUARD, LEEDS (GREATCOATS).

Major Milner: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that members of the Leeds Home Guard are still without greatcoats and that


as promises have been made since last November which have not been kept, un less assurances are immediately forthcoming numerous resignations will take effect this week, and whether in these circumstances he is prepared to take immediate action and provide the greatcoats essential for duty in the present inclement weather?

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for War (Sir Edward Grigg): I am aware that some members of the Leeds Home Guard are without greatcoats; but all members have had the opportunity of drawing either a greatcoat or a cape. The latter are an excellent protection against inclement weather, though admittedly not so convenient as greatcoats. My right hon. and gallant Friend explained the position fully in this House on 27th January and undertook that all capes in the Home Guard should be replaced by greatcoats as soon as an alternative use for the capes had been found. We hold by that under taking; but the House will, I am sure, agree that in the meanwhile waste of sound and serviceable capes would not be justifiable when restrictions on all forms of clothing are being rigidly enforced. I am confident that members of the Home Guard will understand the position and will accept my assurance that we are doing our utmost to find an alternative use for the capes without undue delay.

Major Milner: Is it not a fact that promises have been made since November, that the matter has been in the hands of the War Office since 3rd January, that no action has been taken, that some men are without either greatcoats or capes, and that there are ample supplies of great coats available in Leeds? Why cannot action be taken immediately on a small matter of this sort?

Mr. Hepworth: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this applies to Bradford as well as to Leeds?

Sir E. Grigg: The matter cannot be considered with regard to one unit alone and an issue to all units would involve very considerable waste. It is not the case that members of the Leeds unit are without capes or greatcoats. There are capes available for all, without greatcoats or not. The House rightly insists on the avoidance of waste and we are entitled to ask for the co-operation of hon. Members in enforcing it.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Will the Lord Privy Seal state the business for next week?

Mr. Attlee: The business will be as follows:
First Sitting Day.—Committee stage of Supplementary Estimates for Broadcasting, Colonial and Middle Eastern Services, and Ministry of Labour and National Service. Report stage of Supplementary Estimates taken in Committee on 4th February.
Second Sitting Day.—Second Reading of the Ministers of the Crown and House of Commons Disqualification Bill and Committee and remaining stages of the Securities (Validation) Bill.
Third Sitting Day.—We propose to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on going into Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates, 1942, and to consider Votes A and 1 and Army Supplementary Estimate in Committee.

Sir P. Harris: Will the Supplementary Estimate for Broadcasting give an opportunity for a full Debate on the work of the British Broadcasting Corporation or will it be confined to smaller items?

Mr. Attlee: It is for Empire and Foreign Broadcasting, and the scope of the Debate is of course a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Stephen: Will an opportunity be given at an early date for a discussion on the Treaty with Ethiopia?

Mr. Attlee: I will convey to the Prime Minister the intimation that that is desired.

Sir H. Williams: When will the Debate on the Ministry of Production be taken?

Mr. Clement Davies: Are we to have a statement before the rising of the House to-day or early next week on the serious news from Singapore?

Mr. Attlee: Not to-day. A Supplementary Estimate will shortly be presented for the office of Minister of Production. It will have to be considered in Committee and on Report, and the time for the Debate will be a matter for arrangement through the usual channels.

Mr. De la Bère: When are we to have a Debate on the plight of the small retailer and shop-keeper? We were promised a good many months ago that time would be found.

Mr. Attlee: That is a matter that could very well be raised on the Motion for the Adjournment.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: Does the reply to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Davies) mean that the Prime Minister might make a statement on the war situation next week?

Mr. Attlee: I cannot say but I will convey the suggestion to the Prime Minister.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Can we have an early discussion on the whole question of nursery schools, nursery classes and residential nursery centres for war workers and children?

Mr. Attlee: The Minister of Health will be quite ready for a discussion on this question, which could be raised on the Motion for the Adjournment.

DEFENCE (GENERAL) REGULATIONS, 1939 (REGULATION 18B).

Report presented,—of action taken under Regulation 18B during the period 1st December, 1941, to 31st December, 1941 [pursuant to Regulation 18B (6)]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed [No. 44].

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to—

Education (Scotland) Bill, without Amendment.

NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.

That they give leave to the Lord Reith to attend in order to his being examined as a witness before the Sub-Committee on Works, appointed by the Select Committee appointed by this House on National Expenditure.

Orders of the Day — RESTORATION OF PRE-WAR TRADE PRACTICES BILL.

As amended, considered.

CLAUSE 5.—(Offences and penalties.)

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Tomlinson): I beg to move, in page 4, line 28, to leave out "twenty-five," and to insert "fifty."
We promised to give consideration to the question of the fines to be imposed in the event of conviction, and this Amendment is the result of the consideration.

Mr. Silverman: When the Clause was being considered in Committee an Amendment was moved. Subsequently there was a discussion on the subject on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." I take it that those discussions have led the Minister to put down the Amendment which has just been moved. The intention of those discussions, and of this Amendment I take it, is to secure that it shall not be more profitable for an employer to pay the penalty than to comply with the award of the tribunal. For that purpose, it is now proposed to raise the

maximum penalty from £25 to £50, both for the offence and for the continuing penalty, if failure to comply continues. In the discussions it was suggested that it might be possible to secure compliance with the award more effectively than by the imposition of a penalty. As every body pointed out, it was easy to conceive circumstances in which even the penalty now proposed would be cheaper than failure to comply with the Order, and that thereby the intention of the Clause, the Bill and of the present Amendment would be defeated. Everybody recognised, too, that to devise machinery for making the award operative, as it were, of itself, might be so difficult as to be impossible. My hon. Friend assured me that attention had been given to the matter and that, unfortunately, no such machinery had been devised. I want to make a practical suggestion to my hon. Friend. Probably he cannot carry it out here, but there will be time before the Bill becomes law to consider whether he thinks the suggestion practicable, and I hope that he will give it sympathetic consideration.
We are setting up a tribunal by the Bill. It is not a normal court of law but a tribunal with power to hear two sides, or more, if there are more than two, and to come to a decision and make an award. That award may entitle the worker to the payment of a sum of money. Clause 4 provides that any sum due by virtue of such an award can be recovered by summary proceedings. The award may not be concerned only with the payment of a sum of money, because Clause 5 (3,b) provides that the award shall state precisely what steps are to be taken by the employer in order to discharge such obligation in relation to a trade practice. Suppose an award states precisely certain steps which an employer, or any other person under the control of an employer, ought to take, and suppose that those steps are not taken; Clause 5 provides certain penalties. The Amendment re defines what those penalties are to be. If the tribunal were any other kind of court it could enforce its own award. It could make certain that its behests were obeyed. If the award were a sum of money, there is the process of execution. If it were an award ordaining that a certain deed shall be performed and if the person adjudged liable to do the deed of take the steps did not obey, that person would be guilty


of contempt of court. It would not be that he had committed an offence which needed to be proved again and which would attract new penalties. He would be in contempt, and the court could secure that its award was made operative by an order of the judge, putting in prison the person who is in default.

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: That is, of course, what happens to a lot of people. Under the Act which was passed at the end of the last war, it was perfectly clear that I should go to prison, and that would have happened if action had not been taken which enabled the withdrawal of the second writ. If the hon. Member wants to send employers to prison for employing workers at higher wages, he will be making an end of this Act of Parliament in the same way as the previous Act was ended.

Mr. Silverman: I am not concerned with the issue of any writs and I have no more desire than has any other Member of the House to see the hon. Member go to prison. I am not concerned to prevent people paying high wages to workers, and the Bill is not concerned with cases of individual employers or individual workers. It is concerned with anyone, a Member of this House or anyone else, who takes a specious course of action which, on the face of it, looks generous, but is designed, not so much to secure a benefit to a few individuals as to undermine the whole organisation by which organised labour retains its position in a competitive economic world. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that if a tribunal is to make awards, it is in the interest of every body that those awards should be effective. The hon. Member would agree, whether he approves of the law or not, that it is his duty as a citizen to obey it, and that it is in the public interest that if a tribunal exists it shall not be abortive but shall have the same power as any other tribunal to make its decisions work. If that leads to injustice or to consequences which anyone thinks anti-social, he has his remedy in the House by seeking to get the law amended.
That however has nothing to do with my point, which is that so long as the tribunal exists and has the power to make awards the awards should be effective and not abortive. The simple way of doing that is not by imposing penalties, but by

treating a man who is in default under such an award precisely as we treat a per son who is in default under the judgment of any other court. We ought not to need a summons or summary conviction or any thing of that kind. In any other court of which a person is in contempt, the court has power to put him in prison and to keep him there until he purges his contempt. The only way in which he can do that is by ceasing his defiance of the law and complying with the judgment. There is no reason in principle for not applying that view of the matter to this tribunal, and there would be no difficulty in practice.
I suggest that in that way two results would be secured. One is that it would no longer be more profitable for anybody to continue in defiance of the award than to comply with it. The other is that a multiplicity of proceedings would be avoided. Under this Clause a new proceeding, a new summons, a new trial and a new penalty would be needed every time there was an individual failure to comply with an award. That ought not to be necessary. The failure to comply with an award ought to be a contempt of court and treated as such, and the award of the tribunal ought to be made operative as is the judgment of any other court. I considered whether there was any way of moving an Amendment, but that would not have given the Department a fair opportunity to come to a decision. I put the suggestion forward, therefore, for my hon. Friend's consideration. I am sure that he will not doubt my friendliness to the Bill. All I am doing is to recommend to the Government what I am convinced would be an improvement in the principle of the Bill and the machinery whereby it will be enforced.

Mr. Hopkinson: The House ought to consider the real meaning of what we have just heard from the hon. Member. It is highly improbable that a case will be brought under this Bill except a case similar to that which destroyed the last pre-war practices Act, because I under stand that no other employer in the country except myself will defy this Bill, as I propose to defy it, if the circumstances arise. The hon. Member wants to impose imprisonment on an employer for employing a man disabled in the war under conditions which are distinctly better than those which the trade unions set up.


Instead of throwing on the street and on to charity a man who has lost both legs, he trains him carefully in a trade. That is the sort of case which in all probability will arise if this Bill becomes an Act.

Mr. Silverman: Will the hon. Gentle man consider the other kind of case? He naturally chooses one that recommends itself to the sentiment of the House.

Mr. Hopkinson: It was the only case brought.

Mr. Silverman: That was after the last war, but we are considering the future. There might be a case of a recalcitrant employer who says that it does not pay him to comply with the law, that he can make a lot more money by not complying with it, even by paying the penalty. Therefore, penalty or no penalty, he decides to continue in defiance of the law and of the House of Commons.

Mr. Hopkinson: If the hon. Member knows anything about industry, he knows perfectly well that no employer will do that. Nobody did after the last war except me.

Mr. Naylor: On a point of Order. In view of the fact that the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) has expressed his defiance of the House of Commons and declared his intention of not carrying out the provisions of what may shortly become an Act of Parliament, is not that sufficient justification for you, Sir, to order his removal to the Clock Tower?

Mr. Hopkinson: I am sure Mr. Speaker is not taking the responsibility for a decision of that sort. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) says that the tribunal should have the right to send a man to gaol. What will the tribunal consist of? On the precedent of the last tribunal, it will consist of a chairman, presumably unbiased, of a trade union official, who is the prosecutor in the case in question, and a member of the Employers' Federation who, in the tease of a person like me, who will have nothing to do with the Employers' Federation, will be prejudiced from the start against the unfortunate defendant. That court in my own case took evidence. Evidence was given which I can only describe as a cold, calculated lie, because it was perfectly known to everybody

engaged in our industry in Lancashire that what was said was not true. It was stated that no man could work a planing machine in an engineering shop in Lancashire unless he had served seven years' apprenticeship to the trade. Every engineer knows that was not true, and I was convicted on a deliberate lie by a court of which two of the three members at least were prejudiced and one was actually the prosecutor in the case.

Mr. Silverman: Did the hon. Member appeal?

Mr. Hopkinson: I did not—the matter was so trivial.

Mr. Silverman: Then why be revengeful?

Mr. Hopkinson: I am not revengeful. I believe in retribution, but not revenge. I ask the House to consider whether we are not making the law a farce if we do this sort of thing. We set up a prejudiced tribunal and then it is proposed to give it the right to imprison a man for the appalling crime which I have related.

Mr. Tomlinson: I will look at the suggestion which my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) has made. What I am afraid of is that what we are seeking to avoid may become the first principle in the Bill, namely, that the court should have the powers of summary jurisdiction. We are hoping that the need to call a court of summary jurisdiction will arise on very few occasions. With regard to the argument of the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson), what he was suggesting is not a proposal that is laid down in the Bill. Even people who seek to act in defiance of the law find themselves up against the law itself. If there is defiance of the law, of course the law will have to take its course. It is perfectly obvious that when you are legislating you are not legislating for individuals but for the community, and you have to deal with it in that sense.

Mr. Hopkinson: My hon. Friend says he is going to consider this matter. Will he consider the possibility of applying Regulation 18B to this, and then he would not need a court at all?

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 4, line 32, leave out "twenty-five," and insert "fifty."—[Mr. Tomlinson.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. Ellis Smith: On behalf of my hon. Friends of the organisations which will be affected by this Bill, I desire to express their appreciation at its introduction. The Bill has been improved as a result of its passage through this House, and I would like to place on record our appreciation of the way it has been handled by the Minister and of the way it has been received by the whole House. The spirit which has prevailed has been very good, and I hope that the same spirit will prevail when the Measure is being administered after the war. I hope we shall avoid a repetition of the spirit which found expression in the observations made by my hon. Friend who spoke earlier. After the war we shall be in a very difficult situation in this country, and it is most important that the good relations which were built up in industry before the war, and which have been improved during the war, should be maintained. They will not be maintained unless the spirit that has found expression during the deliberations of the House on this Bill finds expression also in its administration. Therefore, my hon. Friends and I welcome the Bill, and I trust that the few observations I have made will be noted by all persons concerned.

Mr. Hopkinson: I rise not to oppose the Third Reading, but to ask the House to kick the silly thing forward as quickly as possible, and get on with it.

Mr. Rhys Davies: I should not have risen to speak at all had it not been for the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman). I hope and believe that at the end of this war there will not be as much trouble in restoring trade practices as has been suggested. There are obviously some practices which will lapse of their own accord, but I want to ask the hon. Gentleman to bear in mind one point and that is about the administration of the law. The mere fact that we pass an Act of Parliament means nothing, unless some machinery exists to implement it, and I suppose it will rest with the trade unions, if their trade practices are not restored, to take up the cudgels on behalf of their members. The real point which I want to make is this. It has

been borne upon my mind on many occasions in connection with the administration of the Shops Act—I mean the question of fines. Some years ago violations of the Shops Act by opening shops on Sunday became an absolute scandal. Shopkeepers were being fined 2s. 6d. or 5s. for each offence of opening on Sunday, and it paid them to open and pay the very small fines imposed by the courts. I do not presume for a moment that that will apply under this Bill when it becomes law, but let us remember that when we put in a £50 fine it is a maximum and not a minimum, and I would not be a bit surprised if in Lancashire, for instance, very small fines were imposed under this Measure. I have taken some interest in the annual reports of factory inspectors from time to time, and it has appalled me to find on occasions that people sitting on magisterial benches, if they are employers in the same line of business as the defendant and one of their number is brought before the court for violating the Factory Acts, impose fines as low as 2S. 6d. or 5s.

Mr. Wootton-Davies: Has the hon. Gentleman any evidence that magistrates differentiate between people in that way? Can he pro duce any evidence?

Mr. Davies: Fines have been imposed of the amounts I have stated, and they are on record. I wish I could believe that human nature has elevated itself to such a high level that a group of employers will not feel kindly disposed to one of their number. I believe that this Bill will be welcomed in industry on all sides, and I sincerely trust the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) will not be so foolish as to challenge the House of Commons, otherwise I am afraid he will find that the House of Commons will de feat him.

Mr. Hopkinson: Unfortunately the fine will have to be paid by the trade unionists that I employ. The trouble is this. I do not get a penny out of my business and all the profits go to the men concerned, and they may find that it will be a charge upon the business which will be payable by them.

Mr. Davies: The answer to that is a simple one, namely, that all wealth comes out of employment of some kind. There


is no wealth unless it is produced by some body's labour. The hon. Gentleman uses his brain in his business, but the work-people he employs—and I understand he is a very good employer—surely produce the wealth which he handles.

Mr. Hopkinson: Undoubtedly.

Mr. Silverman: I do not think that the very contemptuous attitude of the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) ought to go quite unrebuked by this House. He is entirely entitled to any opinion he may hold, and to voice it, but he is not entitled to treat with such complete contempt the opinion of every other Member of the House. He is in a minority of one. I have observed through out the discussions on this Measure that most employers want this Bill to become law, and it is certainly true that all the Labour organisations want it to become law; I do not say that that should lead him to alter his opinion, but surely the hon. Member might at any rate show this courtesy to the opinion of other people: that when the combined opinion of both sides is so overwhelmingly unanimous in opposition to the view which he himself puts forward, he should not try to cover the paucity of support which he gets by an extension of his attitude of contempt and defiance towards the opinion of everybody here. He said that he was able, on the last occasion, by going to court and paying the fine, to set at nought the law which this House had laid down. What we are concerned with is to see that this law shall not be defied as the last one was, and that is why I made the suggestion which I made earlier and which the Minister is going to consider. It seems that we are getting into a very strange position when a man can get up in this House and say not merely that he does not agree with it, but also use phrases like "kick it along," "get on with it," "it will not matter," and "I propose to defy it." I belong to Lancashire, as does the hon. Gentleman. Lancashire likes an independent mind and attitude. I am not always accused myself of lack of independence, particularly where the Government is concerned.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point which arises on this Bill.

Mr. Silverman: All I wish to say to the hon. Gentleman is that Lancashire itself

has suffered a great deal from the extent to which independence has become anarchy.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must confine himself to the purposes of this Bill.

Mr. Silverman: The purpose of this Bill is to prevent, when the war is over, and when trade practices are resumed, anarchy in organised labour, to prevent lawlessness as between employer and employed, to prevent the old law of the economic jungle as between people with only their labour to sell and others who have a good deal of power to exploit that labour. I hope that the Bill will be passed, not in any spirit of contempt, but with a determination to see that its pro visions are enforced.

Mr. Henry Strauss: This Bill provides, for the benefit of trade unionists, a compulsory return to pre-war practices. I support that Bill on the grounds which I explained to the House on Second Reading, but I think that the Howe should not ignore the implications of the Bill. If it is considered eminently proper that trade unionists should have guaranteed to them a return to pre-war practices, it will be most ungenerous of them if, on some future occasion, they represent it as monstrous that anyone other than a trade unionist should wish to have some return to the conditions which he or she enjoyed before the war, even though such return might be in the interests of the country and a return to something that was worthy and good. It seems to me quite intolerable that trade unionists should say—not many do say it but it is sometimes said on their behalf—that the old order, every thing we enjoyed before the war, is properly dead, but that thy make an exception of everything that they as trade unionists enjoyed. I welcome this Bill; I think the trade unionists are entitled to the fulfilment of a pledge. Therefore, this Bill is right, but it is not right to claim privileges for trade unionists as though they were the only class of the community that has made sacrifices for this war. There are other classes who have made greater sacrifices and with no guarantee that what they enjoyed before the war will ever be restored. They have done that willingly and rightly, but it should not be represented in this House or out-


side it that, if it is right for trade unionists to hope to return to the position before the war, it is entirely improper for anyone not a trade unionist to do the same thing.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Though I was interested in what the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. H. Strauss) has just said, and though there may be a great deal in the line of argument he used in supporting the Bill, I would like to support it from a rather different point of view. It is sometimes assumed by those with little knowledge of the different branches or arteries of industry that there is a perpetual form of warfare between employers and trade unionists. Such an assumption cuts right across the truth and spreads the seed of future trouble most dangerous to all those engaged in industry and to the very State itself. I support this Bill, though I recognise it puts both trade unionists and employers into a particular position vis-a-vis their neighbours in the community. I support the Bill because I think it is in the best tradition of the best type of trade union history. It is, after all, a Bill which in effect—so it appears to me—gives some thing in the nature of compulsory arbitration on a number of difficult points, Assuming that is so, I think we can fairly say it gives something in the nature of a pool within which discussion can take place under post-war conditions to see how far pre-war conditions can be amended to meet a new situation. With out that pool or protected area or zone at the time when the war is ended the chaos that would ensue would be similar to that which ensued after the last war.

Mr. Hopkinson: The hon. Member refers to the chaos after the last war. He has forgotten there was a similar Act in force then.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I have not forgotten the date of that Act. I think the point is that we are making quite clear now that the points of difficulty will be open to discussion, and arbitration, and settlement, in a fair manner.

Mr. Hopkinson: That is the same as in the last war.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Yes, but it was done too late.

Mr. Hopkinson: No, the Bill was passed in 1919.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: But 1919 was not during the war.

Mr. Hopkinson: The hon. Member must not misrepresent the position.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: We are endeavouring to protect ourselves against the dangers of an unknown situation as far as we possibly can. That is the value of the Bill. It is in accordance with the best traditions of trade union history in this country which, in fact, is not what it is assumed to be so often, even on the other side of the Atlantic; it is not a matter of the employer picking up a bludgeon and trying to beat down the worker and the worker picking up a bludgeon and trying to beat down the employer. The majority of this structure of trade union history and the history of industry of this country has been built up on sound, steady, what might be termed, research, conversation, discussion, between those engaged in industry. Because of that I believe the Bill is fully worthy of the support of the House.

Mr. Tomlinson: There is very little I wish to say, but I would like to express thanks for the way in which the House has received the Bill, and particularly to thank the hon. Member for Weston-super Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing), who has just spoken for saying what I wanted to say in so much better language than I could have employed.

Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — LANDLORD AND TENANT (REQUISITIONED LAND) BILL.

As amended, considered.

Motion made, "That the Bill he now read the Third time."—[King's Consent Signified.]

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.

Resolved,
That the Orders made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, extending Section 1 of the Act to—

(1) the Urban District of Chepstow; and
(2) the Urban District of Urmston

copies of which were presented to this House on 10th February, be approved."—[Mr. Peake.]

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.

Ordered,
That Mr. Watkins be discharged from the Select Committee on National Expenditure and that Mr. David Adams be added to the Committee."—[Mr. Young.]

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Young.]